Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeerJ Computer Science


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sole person arguing to keep is invoking WP:Other stuff exists, which isn't a valid argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

PeerJ Computer Science

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article dePRODded by creator with reason WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PROD reason still stands: Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (only sources are a press release and the journal's website). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per nom, It is cited a few times, but probably not enough to meet WP:NJournals (examples: 1 and 2) and there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines as I could only find this article with an interview that contributes towards establishing notability even if it is not entirelly indepentdent and it is not enough to fulfill the requirement of having multiple sources PeerJ Launches PeerJ Computer Science If additional RS that meet the requirements were found I would lean towards inclusion.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The journal is in the selective indexing service for major CS journals at DBLP (DBLP Bibliography Server). Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pennsylvania libraries have both announced support for researchers publishing in PeerJ Computer Science. . he computing association USENIX has stated that rejected papers from its conferences would be offered for formal peer-review and publication in the journal, giving the reason that many significant contributions to science often go unpublished due to space constraints. Woodleymode (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment None of those databases/lists are particularly selective and the coverage is not really in-depth either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete mostly a case of WP:TOOSOON I think. A merge might be more appropriate though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Brand-new journals that make a sufficient splash can be notable (I think Discrete Analysis is, for instance) but I don't see it in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. No offense to Discrete Analysis, which is a great idea, but it can hardly be called a "splash" with just seven articles. If that's the definition of notable, then PeerJ CS certainly qualifies. I'm not sure RandyKitty's opinion on whether DBLP etc are notable is the consensus either, the community seems to think it is significant. Woodleymode (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think your logic is incorrect for the following reasons: Discrete Analysis is absolutely not notable under Wp:NJournals. However, it has generated significant coverage in good independent sources, meaning that it meets WP:GNG (a rare feat indeed for a new academic journal). PeerJ itself has generated such coverage, too, but PeerJ Computer Science has not, so it doesn't meet GNG. The only other way then for it to meet our inclusion criteria is to meet NJournals and I argue that it doesn't. DBLP does not contribute to notability, because it strives to be all inclusive and therefore is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals (even though it is a significant resource in its own right and considered valuable by the community it serves). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, by "splash" I meant the independent coverage of the journal, not the papers it has published (top quality as they might be). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is textbook WP:OCE. Tigraan (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.